By Julie Beal
The sight of a slave in a muzzle is disturbing – especially when the wearer is alone in a car or walking outside in the rain. These people are not in Gitmo, and they’re not wearing a muzzle under duress, so they have surrendered their autonomy, and their brains appear to be absent. The black ones make people look like Hannibal Lecter and the pretty ones look like panties in the wrong place.
It’s best to avoid getting close to these zombies because those muzzles are filthy – with each laboured in-breath that sucks the material towards their wet mouths, they’re culturing the microbes that come out of their bodies and the air around them, thus creating new and exotic colonies of bacteria, fungi and viruses. Because the muzzles are soaked in slave-drool, these microbes are able to use the mesh weave of the cloth to form a whole new world for themselves. The slaves are all immuno-deficient from the jabs, so their saliva is more accomodating to new species, and might also be bringing some mutant spike proteins to the party.
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are loving the muzzles, apparently. They’re a nice, safe place to live, kept warm like an incubator from the laboured exertions of the slave, so they’re gonna be a great attraction for the lab-made viruses contained in flu vaccines. These viruses are shed from the mouth and nose with nowhere to go but the muzzle, and they could influence other viruses and bacteria living in the new colony. For example, they could affect the pecking order of the microbes there, making one species more or less dominant than it was before. They could also exchange genetic material with other viruses in the colony and thus create entirely new species.
Evidence for this happening comes from scientists who’ve isolated microbes from the so-called masks, cultured them in the lab, and confirmed their identity using genetics. These techniques are also useful for discovering the effects of genetic and live-virus vaccines, preferably using metagenomic analysis to detect the formation of new species.
Unfortunately, however, alt media is giving these techniques a bad press – all the negatives of PCR combined with an irrational interpretation of genomic sequencing promoted by no-virus theorists. We’re supposed to just reject all the tools and evidence available which means there’s no point even looking at the results of experiments, because apparently, geneticists are ‘making it up’.
But genetic sequencing is a great way to do forensics! Like finding out what’s on the masks, what’s being shed from people’s bodies after the vax, and why the SARS-CoV-2 virus shows signs of deliberate design. The design of the virus points directly to the coronavirus vaccines that were trialled and tested BEFORE 2020. And the vax point straight at the global ID and a future nobody wants.
Genetic sequencing and RT-PCR are also great tools for doing forensics on previous outbreaks, such as all the ‘suspected cases’ of SARS that turned out to be wrong, which is evidence of admission bias. It also provides insight into previous ‘pseudo-outbreaks’, such as the whooping-cough hysteria in a hospital in America.
Genetic engineering and genetic interventions are a different matter entirely, especially now they’re Big Pharma’s favourite. They add to the great big mess created by GM food and other environmental pollutants that are playing havoc with the delicate ecological balance we’ve achieved, for all their green-washed propaganda about ‘sustainability’.
The only way to beat them at their game is to keep up with how the game is played, and the best way is to use their own tools of the trade. To truly appreciate how monstrous their products are, and what they’re doing to the world, we need to make use of molecular biology and genetic sequencing as forensic tools. Because at the end of the day, no matter what you think about the ‘real’ cause of disease, or the alleged existence of viruses, there’s no doubt that viruses can be manufactured. Since viruses can be designed on a computer and manufactured in a lab, they exist BEFORE any potential disease can exist. They are not a natural creation and they don’t have a natural source. They’re not solvents or exosomes or death particles or microzyma, and they may or may not have an effect on humans.
Even if they do have an effect sometimes, it doesn’t mean the viruses can only be either dangerous or not dangerous, because the effect is usually MINIMAL and easily addressed by isolating the sick. Put another way, rather than being a question of disease/no disease, it’s more often a question of degree, i.e. how much disease, and how bad it is.
So if we want to understand what makes this a plandemic, what’s being shed from the vaxxed, and what’s on those filthy masks, we need to evaluate all the evidence. It’s also vital to understand the false paradigm created by the germ/terrain (thesis/antithesis) argument. The truth is, microbes are a big part of the terrain and most are beneficial. Except, perhaps, for the microbes being cultured on slave muzzles….
Bacteria Love Living on Masks!
A 2014 study by Luksamijarulkul et al (‘Microbial Contamination on Used Surgical Masks among Hospital Personnel and Microbial Air Quality in their Working Wards: A Hospital in Bangkok’) assessed the level of bacterial and fungal contamination found on used surgical masks worn by hospital personnel as well as the air in the wards they worked on. They isolated and cultured samples from 230 used surgical masks and 215 indoor air samples. The two main species found on both the inside and the outside of masks were Staphylococcus bacteria and Aspergillus fungi. These organisms are a normal part of the microbial flora of humans and the environment (e.g. the air we breathe). Viruses were not tested for.
Samples were cultivated in an agar-based medium, and results revealed that the mean ± SD of bacterial contamination on the inside part of the masks was 47 ± 56 cfu/ml/piece whereas on the outside part of the masks it was about 166 ± 199 cfu/ml/piece. Most of the bacteria were Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas. According to the World Health Organization, microbial counts in the air we breathe should be less than 300 cfu/m3, but people with immune problems shouldn’t be breathing anything higher than 100 cfu/m3. However, the researchers make no mention of evidence that suggests these levels are in any way safe for extended periods of time.
Fungus was also found living on the masks (mainly Aspergillus and Penicillum) and again, there were higher amounts on the outside area of the masks. Air samples collected from the medical wards were also predominantly Staphylococcus, Penicillium and Aspergillus. The researchers acknowledge that even surgical masks are inefficient at filtering “particles of some infectious agents, especially M. tuberculosis and some viral particles” and the microbes were probably increased by “used mask behaviors”, such as not washing them enough to kill all the microbes in them.
A 2019 study was performed by Chughtai et al (‘Contamination by respiratory viruses on outer surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers’) and involved testing surgical masks worn by 148 healthcare workers working a 6-8 hour shift in high-risk wards in China. Fifteen of the masks tested positive for viruses; adenovirus was isolated from seven mask samples whilst bocavirus, RSV and influenza viruses were each isolated from two samples. More viruses were present when masks were worn for more than six hours and workers had examined more than 25 patients a day.
“Viral DNA/RNA was extracted using KingFisher Flex 96 viral DNA/RNA purification kit (Thermo Fisher, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction was performed to amplify 15 viral target genes, including influenza A/B virus, influenza A(H1N1) and A(H3N2), parainfluenza viruses 1–4, rhinoviruses, bocavirus, human metapneumovirus, adenovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, coronaviruses OC43, 229E, NL63 and HKU1 using a commercial multiplex combined real-time PCR detection kit for Respiratory virus…”
Most of the participants (124 out of 148) reported at least one issue with mask use, e.g. it was uncomfortable, hard to talk to patients, hard to breathe and gave them a headache.
Masks and Microbiomes
One of the most important aspects of health has taken a back seat since the ronascam began – the microbiomes we all embody. As noted by Engelbrecht and Kohnlein in their book, ‘Virus Mania’:
“Bacteria, fungi and viruses are omnipresent – in the air, in our food, in our mucous membranes – but we aren’t permanently sick…. it is becoming increasingly clear that the biological terrain of our intestines – the intestinal flora, teeming with bacteria – is accorded a decisive role, because it is by far the body’s biggest and most important immune system. A whole range of factors (in particular nutrition, stress, lack of activity, drug use, etc.) influence intestinal flora, so it has a decisive influence on all sorts of severe or less serious illnesses.”
The authors say there’s a lack of evidence for what constitutes a normal gut microbiome, and even suggest there aren’t many studies that show the benefits of pre- and probiotics. However, this area of research has exploded over the last ten years, and there’s a massive amount of information out there now. Some of it is undermining the tenets of vaccinology, such as the magic bullet theory of antibodies.
As described by Proal and Marshall in, ‘Re-framing the Theory of Autoimmunity in the Era of the Microbiome: Persistent Pathogens, Autoantibodies, and Molecular Mimicry’ (2018),
“… the discovery of the human microbiome has revolutionized our understanding of human biology. Humans are superorganisms that harbor trillions of persistent microbial cells. Indeed, vast human microbiomes have been detected in human tissue and blood. These microbial ecosystems harbor thousands of newly identified bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms…”
These microbes create brand new microbiomes on the face masks themselves, and use of face masks can also affect the internal and external microbiomes (e.g. the nose, the mouth and the skin around it).
This was recently demonstrated in a study by Delanghe et al (‘Cotton and Surgical Face Masks in Community Settings: Bacterial Contamination and Face Mask Hygiene’, September, 2021). The researchers, “compared the bacterial load and microbiome composition on certified disposable surgical masks and self-made cotton masks, to evaluate some risks for bacterial cross-contamination.” They worked out what bacteria were present in the mask wearers’ mouths and noses by taking swabs before and after wearing the mask, “in order to detect shifts in the microbiome caused by face mask wearing. Particular attention was given to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, putative food-related pathogens, and skin and respiratory pathobionts.”
A ‘pathobiont’ is a microbe that has the potential to be harmful, given the right conditions. As noted by Proal and Marshall, “Most of the bacteria and viruses identified in the human microbiome are pathobionts: they are capable of acting as pathogens under conditions of imbalance and immunosuppression.”
Delanghe et al cultured bacteria from masks worn by 13 healthy people; a total of 47 colonies were isolated, subjected to colony PCR and identified using Sanger sequencing. The cotton masks were found to contain about 1.46 × 105 CFU of bacteria and the surgical ones contained about 1.32 × 104 CFU. Most of the bacteria were Bacillus, Staphylococcus, and Acinetobacter and almost half of the isolates were resistant to two antibioitics (ampicillin and/or erythromycin).
The researchers concluded that four hours of mask wearing, “did not significantly influence specific taxa of the nasal or skin microbiome. …although a trend toward a change in community structures of the skin microbiome could be observed.” They suggested masks could cause some disturbance in these microbiomes if certain microbes grew there, such as Staphylococcus aureus, which, although a normal part of a healthy skin microbiome, can be associated with skin infections, and Acinetobacter baumanni, which can be associated with wound infections and pneumonia. These phenomena are no doubt part of a rich tapestry of interactions between microbes, the human immune system and the environment. This is partly because, “human saliva contains 100 million bacterial cells per milliliter and harbors a range of pathobionts, including Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Candida albicans, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Neisseria, Prevotella, and Veillonella … Furthermore, cotton serves as substrate for microbial growth and is able to retain moisture, making cotton masks more favorable for high microbial contamination than surgical masks. In addition, the reuse of cotton masks, moisture retention and poor filtration may result in increased risks of transmission of respiratory viruses compared to surgical masks.”
The masks themselves are very attractive as a place to live: “For optimal growth, bacterial cells need a surface to grow on, warmth, moisture, and nutrients, which is the environment created on the face mask due to exhaled air and water vapor.” It’s like creating the same conditions that cause thrush but in this case, dysbiosis could take the form of a condition such as acne.
Obviously, acne is the least of our worries right now, but the above examples serve to highlight a much bigger point – that microbes are an integral part of the terrain and can therefore influence health and disease, and that all of us are part of a delicate web of inter-connectedness across the planet and it’s being warped by the alien genetics in the so-called vaccines.
Read much more about the science behind the coronavirus injections at Julie Beal’s archive.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.